UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-7646



MARIO A. BUSTILLO,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections; DANIEL A. BRAXTON,
Warden of the Augusta Correctional Center,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00248-CMH)


Submitted:   April 2, 2007                 Decided:   April 16, 2007


Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Paul Francis Enzinna, Mark Allison Miller, BAKER & BOTTS,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Mario A. Bustillo seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.              The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.        28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).          A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”                 28 U.S.C.

§   2253(c)(2)   (2000).   A   prisoner   satisfies      this   standard    by

demonstrating    that   reasonable     jurists   would     find   that     any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.        Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bustillo has

not made the requisite showing.        Accordingly, we deny his motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                  We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                  DISMISSED




                                 - 2 -